By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Volodymyr Zelensky announced Ukraine will conduct preemptive strikes on Russian facilities supporting the war effort, aiming to make Moscow pay for its continued attacks and occupation. This strategy involves targeting Russian energy infrastructure, logistics networks, and military production sites, both in occupied Ukrainian territory and within Russia itself. These calculated operations are designed to increase pressure on Moscow and force peace talks, signaling that Russia cannot occupy Ukrainian land without consequence. Russia is reportedly redeploying air defense systems to protect politically sensitive sites, while Ukraine continues to bolster its drone production and seeks further partner support to achieve a guaranteed and dignified peace.
Read the original article here
The sentiment that Russia must “feel the war it started” resonates powerfully, reflecting a growing belief that the aggressor nation needs to experience the consequences of its actions directly. It’s not just about military defeat, but about a visceral understanding of the disruption and suffering that has been inflicted upon Ukraine. The idea is that the abstract concept of war, often distant for those initiating it, needs to become a tangible reality for the Russian populace.
This shift in perception comes as Russia itself begins to experience the repercussions of the conflict it ignited. Instead of the swift victory that was perhaps anticipated, Russia is now contending with significant domestic challenges, including fuel shortages and damaged infrastructure like refineries. Drone attacks deep within its own territory serve as a stark reminder that the war is not confined to distant battlefields but can reach home. These events suggest that the tide may be turning, and the situation for Russia is likely to deteriorate further.
The notion of bringing the war home to Russia is met with a sense of grim satisfaction by some, who draw parallels between current events and past aggressions. The inability of Russia to even hold its traditional Victory Day parades without acknowledging the ongoing conflict highlights the extent to which Ukraine has disrupted its neighbor’s narrative. This is contrasted with the experience of Ukrainians, who have endured years of devastating attacks on their cities and civilians, a reality that many Russians have been shielded from.
Ukraine’s strategy appears to be one of calculated strikes, largely targeting war industries and oil refineries that fuel the conflict, rather than indiscriminate attacks on civilians. While acknowledging that unfortunate civilian casualties are an inherent tragedy of war, the argument is that these actions are a direct response to the war Russia initiated, and a means of making the cost of aggression unsustainable for the aggressor. This approach aims to inflict economic pain and strategic disadvantages, a direct counter to the terror inflicted upon Ukrainian cities.
The impact of these actions is reportedly being felt even within Russia’s more urban and cosmopolitan populations, who may not have previously understood or cared about the distant battles. While hundreds of thousands of lives, often from remote regions or among those with fewer social protections, were seemingly overlooked, the disruption to the daily lives of the middle and upper classes is now becoming undeniable. This personal inconvenience and the crumbling of their comfortable existence could, for some, finally shatter the illusion that the war is a distant concern.
However, there’s a significant nuance regarding how the Russian populace perceives the war. In many Western democracies, there’s an assumption that the people either approve of, are unaware of, or could easily oppose government actions. This perspective doesn’t fully account for the realities of authoritarian regimes like Russia, where dissent is met with swift and severe punishment. Many Russians live under a constant climate of fear, where even the slightest expression of opposition can lead to severe repercussions.
Despite this climate of fear, it’s argued that everyone in Russia feels the war, from the wealthiest to the poorest. While propaganda may have initially swayed some, the ongoing economic fallout, the withdrawal of international companies, and the realization of the war’s true cost are becoming increasingly apparent. Yet, it’s crucial to remember that the individuals who have truly and deeply felt the brunt of this war are the Ukrainians. The argument is that for Russia, the state, to truly understand the gravity of its actions, it must feel the war it started.
The reluctance of NATO and European powers to escalate to a point that might avoid an “all-out war” is understood, yet the desire for Russia to experience profound consequences, perhaps even symbolic ones, remains strong. The idea is that Russia’s continued occupation of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, a violation of international agreements, necessitates continued resistance. Ukraine’s fight is not about aggression but about survival, independence, and the preservation of its cultural identity against a state intent on erasing it.
The criticism that Ukraine might be becoming what it fears by initiating attacks is countered by the fundamental reality that Russia continues to occupy Ukrainian land. Until Russian forces withdraw and respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, the fight for independence is not only justified but necessary. Crippling Russia’s ability to wage war through economic damage and making the conflict unaffordable is seen as the most effective strategy for a nation committed to peace and its own existence.
Comparing Ukraine’s targeted strikes on infrastructure to the indiscriminate bombing of the Blitz overlooks a crucial distinction. The Blitz caused widespread civilian devastation, whereas Ukraine’s actions are aimed at strategically undermining Russia’s capacity to wage war. The argument is that if Russians felt the war was worth fighting, they would be actively participating. Instead, many appear indifferent or inconvenienced, suggesting that these targeted actions might not necessarily galvanize resolve but rather deepen their desire to avoid the conflict altogether.
There is a question of whether Putin himself truly regrets starting the war. While he may privately acknowledge the disastrous miscalculation, his political survival appears to be intrinsically linked to a decisive victory, however unlikely that may now be. The vast human cost, with hundreds of thousands of Russians killed or injured, and the long-term economic damage, paint a grim picture for Russia’s future, even if the war were to cease immediately. His actions suggest a detachment from the human consequences, living in a self-imposed bubble where the realities of a poorer population and destroyed infrastructure are not fully comprehended.
The devastating human cost of the war, with estimates of killed and injured Russians reaching into the hundreds of thousands, and potentially over a million, is a stark reminder of the catastrophic human toll. The scale of loss, driven by the whim of a single leader, is described as nightmarish, particularly for a nation positioned near advanced economies and claiming religious values. The disregard for human life is evident, with individuals being recruited for combat with minimal training, highlighting a disturbing indifference to their fate. The hope is that this relentless pressure and the growing realization of the war’s futility and devastating cost will eventually force a change, either through internal pressure or a complete collapse of the Russian state’s ability to continue its aggression. Ultimately, the call for Russia to “feel the war it started” is a plea for accountability and a demand that the architects of this conflict understand the profound and lasting suffering they have unleashed.